Feature Article - September 2008

Leadership at Ground Zero grinds much too slowly

The site is still an ugly hole seven years after 9/11

                                                                                                                                                  by Tom Davidson

On the 7th anniversary of 9/11, Ground Zero remains a 16-acre hole in the ground, “arguably the greatest political and bureaucratic fiasco in the history of the world,” said Daniel Henninger of The Wall Street Journal.  “Remember the line,” he said, “about how if we don’t rebuild the towers ‘the terrorists will win’?  The terrorists will be dead of old age before this project is finished.” 

Not only scathing of project managers, his rebuke points to a breakdown of politics, planning and leadership.  The unprecedented context, complexity and costs are no excuse.  If mistakes are for learning, then we must have a lot to learn from the bungled reconstruction effort.  The anniversary date should not pass again without sober reflection and fresh resolve.

United we stood, divided we failed

On September 11, 2001, terrorists murdered 3000 people at three sites on U.S. soil.  The human toll and national disaster galvanized citizens in some ways and divided us in others.  Stories of heroism are still unfolding from the events themselves and from the subsequent War on Terrorism. 

Recovery had momentum for a while.  In the aftermath, the Pentagon was repaired and rebuilt, and a fitting National Memorial was established to honor the passengers and crew of Flight 93 in rural Pennsylvania.  The Ground Zero debris was cleaned up in just seven months, but the more difficult reconstruction in New York City is still far from over. 

In fact, much of it is just beginning.  The first four columns of the initial component, the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, were erected just this month, but it will not be open for the 10th anniversary, as originally announced.  Other pronouncements and ribbon cuttings have crumbled as well, along with confidence in our abilities as a country, some calling it a third-world response.  America figured out how to “put a man on the moon and returned him safely to the Earth” in less time.

In their June report to New York Governor Patterson, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the site, said, “The schedule and cost for each of the public projects on the site face significant delays and cost overruns.” Some designs and redesigns are due (again) by the end of this month.  The new governor has said what he does want--which is for all stakeholders to find a way to centralize decision making by the end of September--and what he does not want--which are more phony dates, budgets and time tables.

Lesson 1:  A decision-making system

The sheer complexity should have been a clue that the process needed centralized coordination and efficient decision making from the start.  As the New York Times explained in July, “The work entails more than two dozen projects, some of them large and extremely complex, all within the confines of a dozen square blocks.  Nineteen public agencies, two private developers, and 101 construction contractors and subcontractors are involved.”  In addition, the projects are largely interdependent; one cannot begin until another is substantially complete.  Yet even though these relationships were evident and predictable years ago, the governor is just now calling for a centralized decision-making process. 

Leaders, especially in an emergency or complexity, must decide how to decide.  There are pros and cons to each choice (i.e., authority without input, subcommittee, consensus), but not deciding is worse than picking the wrong method.  The governor may still be abdicating this responsibility by calling on the stakeholders themselves to figure out a process, especially when their track record of cooperation is this abysmal.

Lesson 2:  The void of leadership

The Port Authority’s June report stated that independent agencies had taken uncoordinated, counterproductive actions over the years, and they were exacerbated by political pandering, bureaucracy, apathy, jurisdictional conflicts, and competing agenda.  “Sustaining a vision while dealing with practical problems and realities requires an experienced professional to keep things on course,” said Ada Louise Huxtable of The Wall Street Journal.  “This kind of leadership was always the critical missing factor at Ground Zero.”

This is also the kind of leadership needed in our organizations as well, especially where traditional lines of authority and clear responsibilities are blurred.  The Ground Zero case demonstrates how it may not always be possible to rearrange the organization chart into a convenient shape where everyone is comfortable and clear.  Instead, leaders have to learn how to influence without formal authority, work across traditional boundaries, and live with ambiguity on a continuous basis.  There is little evidence of this at Ground Zero thus far.

Lesson 3:  Stakeholders versus special interests

In his essay, Henninger put his finger on the “third rail” of the problem, the sheer number and unique nature of the stakeholders involved.  In addition to the agencies, developers and contractors listed above, there have been dozens of family groups representing victims and any number of community, cultural and retail entities with “special interests” in the redevelopment of the area.  He argues that our vocabulary has allowed “deadly factions” to become “benevolent stakeholders,” and a mantra of inclusion has eroded our ability to get things done.   Instead of pleasing everyone, no one is satisfied.

The third lesson, then, involves the need to separate legitimate stakeholders from special interest groups and then to “balance those agendas in the interest of a more overriding concept,” as Huxtable put it.  Perhaps the pendulum has generally swung too far from autocratic to democratic leadership style when what we really need to do is act more situationally.  In this case, maybe we needed some of those tough-minded fire chiefs and police sergeants who first responded to the call to stay in command instead of turning things over to the politicians and special interests.  Perhaps we need leaders with their skills back on “the pile.”

Can we get there from here?

In a late-August editorial, David Beamer (father of Flight 93’s Todd Beamer), asked, “On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, will people be reminded of the collective will to respond to the attacks in a meaningful way, or will the results of bureaucracy, apathy and a lack of leadership be on display?”  We won’t know the answer to Mr. Beamer’s question for some time, but perhaps we will have more success if we remember his son more often and follow his call to action more efficiently: “let’s roll.”  It’s worth the effort and it’s your job.

Click here to Subscribe to our Leadership Newsletter